What strikes me the most in "Six Characters in Search of an Author" is Pirandello's ability to differentiate between life on stage and life in reality (if such a thing exists). Actors embody characteristics of the characters, yet it is impossible for them to become the characters. Father is convinced that the Leading Actor will be unable to represent him well enough in the play. He modestly states, "Well, I must say, his performance will be--even if he does his best with make-up to look like me--I must say, given his height...it will hardly be a representation of me, as I really am.... And it seems to me that anyone who is called upon to form an opinion about us should take this into acount" (Pirandello 234).
Father is failing to comprehend one of Hayakawa's major principles. No two things (whether they be people, contexts, etc..) are ever identical in any way, shape, or form. The actor has never experienced the character's woes and sorrow on a first-hand extensional basis. Thus, how could he or she possibly be expected to replicate scenes that they have never lived? Widely acclaimed actors are known for their successful assumption of roles, yet what gives them the ability to do so over another actor? Have they experienced events similar to those of the characters? According to the director, "This is theater! The truth, yes, but up to a certain point!" (Pirandello 243).
On page 236, Father continues to speculate about "truth" and the reality created by a scene.
"Here we see a reality that's teased, shaped, and called into life by the scene itself, and that has a better right to live here than you do because it's very much truer than you are" (Pirandello 236).
Once again, I must pose the question concerning Father's differentiation between truth and plausibility. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Reality T.V
One of the things that came up in our conversation in class about "Merchants of Cool" was how reality T.V is not real at all.
This got me thinking about the Truman Show. The Truman Show is basically as realistic of a T.V show that can be made. Truman doesn't even know that he is on T.V. But even this is not completely realistic. The actors that surround Truman are just that, actors. They have a speaker in their ear so that they can be told their lines.
Also, we talked about how advertising is being placed more and more in the shows. The Truman Show is a terrific example of this, where the characters advertise the merchandise directly on the show. They say at one point that everything on the show can be bought. The actors themselves make individual advertisements of products during the show, during Truman's life.
Though the show is reality to Truman, it is manipulated so much that it is not really reality T.V.
Any comments?
Arvind Kalidindi
This got me thinking about the Truman Show. The Truman Show is basically as realistic of a T.V show that can be made. Truman doesn't even know that he is on T.V. But even this is not completely realistic. The actors that surround Truman are just that, actors. They have a speaker in their ear so that they can be told their lines.
Also, we talked about how advertising is being placed more and more in the shows. The Truman Show is a terrific example of this, where the characters advertise the merchandise directly on the show. They say at one point that everything on the show can be bought. The actors themselves make individual advertisements of products during the show, during Truman's life.
Though the show is reality to Truman, it is manipulated so much that it is not really reality T.V.
Any comments?
Arvind Kalidindi
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Thoughts Concerning Culture
Concerning the "Merchants of Cool" I have a few thoughts. The first deals with those trying to discover what is cool. In the video it mentioned how the point of marketing to teens is being able to prove that you can speak their language. That is a key factor. Do any of us listen to someone speaking in a language that we can't understand, in general? Also, I know that the class broke out laughing when this was said in the video, but it does have merit for its meaning: "Tare like Africa." It's funny, but the point is that the people marketing to us want to conquer us, more specifically, they want to conquer our minds, and they want to be able to have control of our desires so that they can make a profit.
Another thought that I had concerns the "ordinary kid" that was interviewed at his house. How do they define "ordinary?" That really puzzled me. Any thoughts?
Finally, a note on culture. The fact that this video is from the 90s really intrigues me. It is interesting to see what was scandalous and shocking in the 90s, because, in reality, that's part of our culture now. Yes, it may seem different, to a certain extent, but we have been completely drawn in and numbed to what once was considered "bad." A thought on human nature: do kids like to see on TV what they can't do themselves? Is that some subconscious way of appeasing a hidden alter ego? (Here I'm referring to vanity, sex, and violence-- it seems like these qualities are highly encouraged in the media.) As I just mentioned, we have become numb to what, in the 90s, was considered bad. The media is constantly trying to keep our interest by topping the last scandal with something more scandalous, for example.
Any thoughts?
(Emily T.)
Another thought that I had concerns the "ordinary kid" that was interviewed at his house. How do they define "ordinary?" That really puzzled me. Any thoughts?
Finally, a note on culture. The fact that this video is from the 90s really intrigues me. It is interesting to see what was scandalous and shocking in the 90s, because, in reality, that's part of our culture now. Yes, it may seem different, to a certain extent, but we have been completely drawn in and numbed to what once was considered "bad." A thought on human nature: do kids like to see on TV what they can't do themselves? Is that some subconscious way of appeasing a hidden alter ego? (Here I'm referring to vanity, sex, and violence-- it seems like these qualities are highly encouraged in the media.) As I just mentioned, we have become numb to what, in the 90s, was considered bad. The media is constantly trying to keep our interest by topping the last scandal with something more scandalous, for example.
Any thoughts?
(Emily T.)
Characters, Life of Pi, Hayakawa...All in One?
Firstly, I apologize for the misposted post beneath this one..my keyboard went nuts.
Anyway...
I clearly understand the connection between the characters and our writing prompt from Life of Pi that Mary mentioned previously. Therefore, I’d like to elaborate and add another connection I found between the two works. When Father initiated the explanation of his background in self-defense, Step-daughter says, “This is no place for stories. Here they don’t tell stories” (Pirandello 222). Father replies, “But I’m not telling a story. I want to explain” (Pirandello 22). The remarks exchanged between Pi and the Japanese investigators were similar. One party believes that factual evidence is easily represented in narrative form. The opposing party is under the impression that language types other than solid reports are incapable of relaying a true set of data.
Later on, the Director assumes the “role” of the Japanese investigators and Father remains the analogical “Pi.” The former states, “Let’s get to the point, my friends, let’s get to the point! This is just a lot of talk” (Pirandello 226). The latter replies (with the quote previously indicated by Grace), “But a fact is like a sack: when it’s empty, it won’t stand up. To make it stand up, we’ve got to put reason and feeling into it to give it body” (Pirandello 226).
Father goes on to deliver a line which I felt was greatly interlaced with the teachings of Hayakawa.
But all the trouble is there, in words. We all have within us a world of things, each of us our own special world made of these things. Now how can we understand each other if I use words for these things that have meanings and values particular to my special world, while whoever hears my words related them to meanings and values particular to his special world? We think we understand each other, but we never do. Look: my pity, all my pity for this woman, she sees as the most ferocious cruelty” (Pirandello 222).
Here are demonstrated examples of differences in extensional and intensional worlds. What may be defined a certain way for one person may be on the opposite side of the spectrum for the next. Affective connotations vary within each mind. Language is perceived differently by all of its readers, writers, listeners, and speakers. This all leads to the inability of a context to be duplicated exactly more than once.
Father goes even further to say, “Yes, expressions! Words! Aren’t they a solace for all of us? When we’re face to face with a fact that can’t be explained, or an evil that eats us up, isn’t it a help to find a word that may say nothing but that brings us relief” (Pirandello 221)? In other words, words do not always necessarily MEAN something, but rather fill a void of either internal or external silence when necessary. According to Hayakawa on page 58 of LITAA, language is not always classified in report-form. It may be used to establish a communion, togetherness, or relief between two parties.
Although many of Father’s philosophical observations have struck me as crystal clear, some of his speculations bewilder me. I was unable to fully comprehend his comparison between what appears to be plausible and what seems to be true (pages 216-217). An explanation would be greatly appreciated! Gracias, merci, thank you!
(Sam Maliha)
Anyway...
I clearly understand the connection between the characters and our writing prompt from Life of Pi that Mary mentioned previously. Therefore, I’d like to elaborate and add another connection I found between the two works. When Father initiated the explanation of his background in self-defense, Step-daughter says, “This is no place for stories. Here they don’t tell stories” (Pirandello 222). Father replies, “But I’m not telling a story. I want to explain” (Pirandello 22). The remarks exchanged between Pi and the Japanese investigators were similar. One party believes that factual evidence is easily represented in narrative form. The opposing party is under the impression that language types other than solid reports are incapable of relaying a true set of data.
Later on, the Director assumes the “role” of the Japanese investigators and Father remains the analogical “Pi.” The former states, “Let’s get to the point, my friends, let’s get to the point! This is just a lot of talk” (Pirandello 226). The latter replies (with the quote previously indicated by Grace), “But a fact is like a sack: when it’s empty, it won’t stand up. To make it stand up, we’ve got to put reason and feeling into it to give it body” (Pirandello 226).
Father goes on to deliver a line which I felt was greatly interlaced with the teachings of Hayakawa.
But all the trouble is there, in words. We all have within us a world of things, each of us our own special world made of these things. Now how can we understand each other if I use words for these things that have meanings and values particular to my special world, while whoever hears my words related them to meanings and values particular to his special world? We think we understand each other, but we never do. Look: my pity, all my pity for this woman, she sees as the most ferocious cruelty” (Pirandello 222).
Here are demonstrated examples of differences in extensional and intensional worlds. What may be defined a certain way for one person may be on the opposite side of the spectrum for the next. Affective connotations vary within each mind. Language is perceived differently by all of its readers, writers, listeners, and speakers. This all leads to the inability of a context to be duplicated exactly more than once.
Father goes even further to say, “Yes, expressions! Words! Aren’t they a solace for all of us? When we’re face to face with a fact that can’t be explained, or an evil that eats us up, isn’t it a help to find a word that may say nothing but that brings us relief” (Pirandello 221)? In other words, words do not always necessarily MEAN something, but rather fill a void of either internal or external silence when necessary. According to Hayakawa on page 58 of LITAA, language is not always classified in report-form. It may be used to establish a communion, togetherness, or relief between two parties.
Although many of Father’s philosophical observations have struck me as crystal clear, some of his speculations bewilder me. I was unable to fully comprehend his comparison between what appears to be plausible and what seems to be true (pages 216-217). An explanation would be greatly appreciated! Gracias, merci, thank you!
(Sam Maliha)
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Are we helpless?
I daresay that upon viewing "Merchants of Cool," I became slightly frightened. Don't you all realize that the media is continually pulling a "George Orwell" on us wherever we go (for lack of better words)? Our situation is almost as extreme as Winston's once was as he faught against the Party.
By age 18, we will have all set eyes upon at least 10,000,000 ads! A mind-blowing statistic, indeed.. Corporations hire correspondants to track our every opinion, our every fashion statement, our every abberation. Their findings are then posted on a website which is accessed by the media for a cost of $20,000 a year. We have become a generation of mannequins, of experimentation. What happened to the good old days where sticking to an agenda was acceptable? Well, according to Hayakawa, nothing is ever static, now is it?
Well, alright, we can handle avoiding propagandists and correspondants, right? Wrong. At one point in time, Cornerstone was known for hiring under-the-radar propagandists to log into chatrooms and act as loyal fans of a certain product.
Even avoiding technology is no longer the solution to our problem. The media knows how to target our needs, our wants, our weaknesses. Years ago, teens were brainwashed into thinking that Sprite and Hip-hop were a single entity. The popular soft drink seemed to be the equivalent of pop culture.
Thus, my question to you is this:
Is there any escape from this brain-washing phenomenon? Are we shoved into its deceptiveness inevitably; or is there a way out?
(Sam Maliha)
By age 18, we will have all set eyes upon at least 10,000,000 ads! A mind-blowing statistic, indeed.. Corporations hire correspondants to track our every opinion, our every fashion statement, our every abberation. Their findings are then posted on a website which is accessed by the media for a cost of $20,000 a year. We have become a generation of mannequins, of experimentation. What happened to the good old days where sticking to an agenda was acceptable? Well, according to Hayakawa, nothing is ever static, now is it?
Well, alright, we can handle avoiding propagandists and correspondants, right? Wrong. At one point in time, Cornerstone was known for hiring under-the-radar propagandists to log into chatrooms and act as loyal fans of a certain product.
Even avoiding technology is no longer the solution to our problem. The media knows how to target our needs, our wants, our weaknesses. Years ago, teens were brainwashed into thinking that Sprite and Hip-hop were a single entity. The popular soft drink seemed to be the equivalent of pop culture.
Thus, my question to you is this:
Is there any escape from this brain-washing phenomenon? Are we shoved into its deceptiveness inevitably; or is there a way out?
(Sam Maliha)
What Character are You?
I found this play very intriguing, and one question out of all of this really came forward:
Aren't we all "characters" in a play?
The father points out that our roles in life have been assigned by others and ourselves. According to him, each of us has many "possibilities for being within us", but we live with the illusion that we are the same for everyone. Namely, society judges us by a couple of acts that we once have done, and has assigned us a "character role" based upon those acts. Once we have our role and others are aware of it, we begin to act as our assigned character would, and feed others' perceptions that we fit a certain role. Although we may be multiple, as the father points out, we have been assigned character roles that we consciously or unconsciously act out during our life.
We've heard of these roles before, or rather labels. "Jock", "prom queen", "goth" are but a few of the roles that others are assigned. One of the father's points that keeps coming back to me is that we can feel caught and suspended by an act we once did and the character role we were then assigned.
Remember when Mr. Lazarow discussed the term, "terrorist"? Isn't calling someone a "terrorist" basically assigning him the "character" role of a terrorist, leading the new character to commit acts that agree with his role?
The father's explanations for his behavior toward his stepdaughter interest me. The father argues that he cannot be held completely accountable for his behavior toward his stepdaughter because it was just a "fleeting, shameful moment" in his life that did not truly represent his character. Basically, he's stating that this depraved and shameful character that his stepdaughter describes is not who he truly is, and that based upon a single action, the stepdaughter is unfairly imposing a character and reality upon him.
Are we defined simply by how others treat us, and the character that has been imposed upon us? Whenever we act outside of our assigned roles, awkwardness results. One the flip side, within our roles, we have a tremendous amount of power.
For example, if Chris Rock told us a black racial joke, we might simply laugh, because it is within the role we have assigned him. If someone like George Bush said that, we would immediately criticize him. We let some people get away with whatever offense they commit because "that's just the way they are", or rather their offense still matches with the character role we have assigned them.
Is there any way to break these molds?
(Eric Wei)
Aren't we all "characters" in a play?
The father points out that our roles in life have been assigned by others and ourselves. According to him, each of us has many "possibilities for being within us", but we live with the illusion that we are the same for everyone. Namely, society judges us by a couple of acts that we once have done, and has assigned us a "character role" based upon those acts. Once we have our role and others are aware of it, we begin to act as our assigned character would, and feed others' perceptions that we fit a certain role. Although we may be multiple, as the father points out, we have been assigned character roles that we consciously or unconsciously act out during our life.
We've heard of these roles before, or rather labels. "Jock", "prom queen", "goth" are but a few of the roles that others are assigned. One of the father's points that keeps coming back to me is that we can feel caught and suspended by an act we once did and the character role we were then assigned.
Remember when Mr. Lazarow discussed the term, "terrorist"? Isn't calling someone a "terrorist" basically assigning him the "character" role of a terrorist, leading the new character to commit acts that agree with his role?
The father's explanations for his behavior toward his stepdaughter interest me. The father argues that he cannot be held completely accountable for his behavior toward his stepdaughter because it was just a "fleeting, shameful moment" in his life that did not truly represent his character. Basically, he's stating that this depraved and shameful character that his stepdaughter describes is not who he truly is, and that based upon a single action, the stepdaughter is unfairly imposing a character and reality upon him.
Are we defined simply by how others treat us, and the character that has been imposed upon us? Whenever we act outside of our assigned roles, awkwardness results. One the flip side, within our roles, we have a tremendous amount of power.
For example, if Chris Rock told us a black racial joke, we might simply laugh, because it is within the role we have assigned him. If someone like George Bush said that, we would immediately criticize him. We let some people get away with whatever offense they commit because "that's just the way they are", or rather their offense still matches with the character role we have assigned them.
Is there any way to break these molds?
(Eric Wei)
Friday, September 26, 2008
Six Characters in Search of an Author
I don't know how far you all have gotten in this play, but I just want to share some of the things that I found interesting while reading. First, I want to point out how much the father seems to understand about language. One of the points he made that really caught my attention was the one about who we are to other people. He stated that basically we are not the same to everyone else, that we have different roles in the worlds of everyone we have met. He then connected that with their situation, saying that the situation was different to everyone. Maybe it's me, but I can't help but think of Hayakawa whenever he brings up a point on language.
I also think that many of the points from Hayakawa can also be found among the characters. When the father comments that his wife doesn't understand him, isn't that proof that the lines of communication between them have not been open for a while? When each character is describing their view on the situation, isn't that showing how semantic environments can affect the way people think, making the view for everyone different in at least some way? There are also many times when the characters argue over which word to use when describing something. Isn't that exactly like the promp we had at the very beginning of the year with Pi and the Japanese investigators?
(Mary Quien)
I also think that many of the points from Hayakawa can also be found among the characters. When the father comments that his wife doesn't understand him, isn't that proof that the lines of communication between them have not been open for a while? When each character is describing their view on the situation, isn't that showing how semantic environments can affect the way people think, making the view for everyone different in at least some way? There are also many times when the characters argue over which word to use when describing something. Isn't that exactly like the promp we had at the very beginning of the year with Pi and the Japanese investigators?
(Mary Quien)
Facts
I'm assuming that we all had a grain (or bucket) of skepticism while watching "Merchants of Cool." I didn't really agree with the focus on rationalism and research/focus groups.
In Six Characters in Search of an Author the Father says "But a fact is like a sack; when it's empty, it won't stand up. To make it stand up, we've got to put reason and feeling into it to give it body" (226)
Are we losing the "big idea" with all the focus on the specifics? The market researchers tried to discover new trends to market by asking about everything from dating to clothing (khaki pants, anyone?). Maybe it's just the simple idea of the "indie" brand that implies individuality and being "special." (Apple over Microsoft, Google over Yahoo! etc.) After all, we are the "I-Generation"...
Thoughts?
Grace Yuan
In Six Characters in Search of an Author the Father says "But a fact is like a sack; when it's empty, it won't stand up. To make it stand up, we've got to put reason and feeling into it to give it body" (226)
Are we losing the "big idea" with all the focus on the specifics? The market researchers tried to discover new trends to market by asking about everything from dating to clothing (khaki pants, anyone?). Maybe it's just the simple idea of the "indie" brand that implies individuality and being "special." (Apple over Microsoft, Google over Yahoo! etc.) After all, we are the "I-Generation"...
Thoughts?
Grace Yuan
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Dodge Poetry Festival
So, I went to the Dodge Poetry Festival today (while the rest of you, unfortunately, were stuck at school). It was really fun and interesting and trippy, but my favorite part was observing the poets and discovering how they used language for themselves. One of the poets, Lucille Clifton, said something that really resonated with me. She said (and I am paraphrasing) that one of the biggest surprises she ever experienced was discovering that people could tell her things that were not true. One day, she said, someone used a racial slur against her, and she knew inherently that she was not what she was: she was not a stereotype, and she was not someone to be looked down upon. It was refreshing and inspiring to know that there are people who do not simply accept words (and their definitions) that are thrust upon them.
Thoughts?
-Paige Walker-
Thoughts?
-Paige Walker-
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Making a Connection
Since both Biology and Chemistry have been introduced in this blog, I'd like to draw a connection between the two. During the first few days of class, Mrs. Ericson found it difficult for us to grasp the idea of bond strengths. We, as a class, were almost determined that ionic bonds were stronger than covalent bonds. Mrs. Ericson was worried by this seemingly general assumption by the class and consulted Mr. Lo on the matter.
In Chemistry, we had learned that an ionic bond's energy was greater than that of a covalent one. However, this is only applicable to its crystalline, solid form. In biology, where most reactions occur in aqueous solutions, ionic bonds are weaker due to their separation into ions upon being dissolved.
Mrs. Ericson concluded that all learning is based on semantics; the environment in which we are located has a great effect upon our learning and intake of knowledge. She then made sure to warn us that in our future courses, we would be foolish to flatly dispose of a principle due to past lessons without a thorough explanation of the circumstances within which the bond exists, for example.
Just an interesting anecdote.
(Sam Maliha)
In Chemistry, we had learned that an ionic bond's energy was greater than that of a covalent one. However, this is only applicable to its crystalline, solid form. In biology, where most reactions occur in aqueous solutions, ionic bonds are weaker due to their separation into ions upon being dissolved.
Mrs. Ericson concluded that all learning is based on semantics; the environment in which we are located has a great effect upon our learning and intake of knowledge. She then made sure to warn us that in our future courses, we would be foolish to flatly dispose of a principle due to past lessons without a thorough explanation of the circumstances within which the bond exists, for example.
Just an interesting anecdote.
(Sam Maliha)
Saturday, September 20, 2008
"...So that we're all talking about the same thing."
Sam has brought up the topic of Biology a few times in regard to definitions, so I would like to bring up Chemistry. For those of you that have Mr. Lo, you have frequently heard him say something like, "Okay, so here are some definitions for you to copy down so that we're all talking about the same thing." As Mr. Lazarow mentioned, those in our class of AP English III are in the minority of people who have read Hayakawa's book, so chances are good that Mr. Lo said this in ignorance of Hayakawa's principles and the discussions that we've had in class. I think it's very interesting how important definitions are-- they allow us to have a base from which to build on, they are the foundation of all conversation, debate, etc., so that we know before we start that "we are all talking about the same thing." Especially in Chemistry, but in any area, without definitions, we'd be in a lot of trouble. We could hold a conversation with another person, use the same "words", but be talking about completely different things (this brings to mind the fact that words are only symbols of their definitions). There must be some sort of linguistic cooperation, as Hayakawa mentions and stresses in chapter one, in order for society to continue to exist. In Chemistry, it is of utmost importance for us to have definitions to work with before we can do a lab or solve an equation.
I just thought that throwing in another example of the importance of definitions might be helpful. I hope it is!
(Emily Thompson)
I just thought that throwing in another example of the importance of definitions might be helpful. I hope it is!
(Emily Thompson)
Friday, September 19, 2008
Redefining Our Terms
Ap Biology never seems to fail me when it comes to drawing connections between reality (if such a thing exists...) and Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action.
As our discussion of the four macromolecules was coming to an end, Mrs. Ericson presented us with the generally accepted definition of "organic compounds." Years ago, an organic compound was classified as a material made by living organisms. Due to the advancement of technology in the present-day, laboratories nationwide are now replicating the processes formerly limited to nature. Thus, the scientific community was compelled to redefine "organic compounds" as substances that contain one or more carbons and hydrogens. This is now the general definition presented in biology textbooks.
This scenario triggered the thought about the discussion we participated in during class a few days ago. Similarly to the scientists in the biological field, McCain succeeded in redefining a word (fundamentals) which was successfully accepted by his audience. What is stopping the average high student, such as you and I, from redefining terms? Are we lacking authoritative positions..?
(Sam Maliha)
As our discussion of the four macromolecules was coming to an end, Mrs. Ericson presented us with the generally accepted definition of "organic compounds." Years ago, an organic compound was classified as a material made by living organisms. Due to the advancement of technology in the present-day, laboratories nationwide are now replicating the processes formerly limited to nature. Thus, the scientific community was compelled to redefine "organic compounds" as substances that contain one or more carbons and hydrogens. This is now the general definition presented in biology textbooks.
This scenario triggered the thought about the discussion we participated in during class a few days ago. Similarly to the scientists in the biological field, McCain succeeded in redefining a word (fundamentals) which was successfully accepted by his audience. What is stopping the average high student, such as you and I, from redefining terms? Are we lacking authoritative positions..?
(Sam Maliha)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Marketing At It's Finest.
"The Power Trek is the latest in fitness technology! It makes exercising so much more fun and easy!" At least, this is what this advertisement that I saw this morning said. In this advertisement, there were many people that said the same thing as above, along with multiple statistics. Why is this marketing at it's finest? It's because of the fact that the Power Trek is nothing but two walking sticks which 'could be yours for only for two payments of 49.99!' I am serious. The commercial was filled with footage of people walking with one stick in each hand and saying how wonderful the product was. Now maybe it's because of English class that I found the whole thing ridiculous, but I can't help but think. Would someone really buy such a product? Are the words and backings and grounds that the advertisement used so convincing that people would actually buy these two sticks for 100 dollars?
(Mary Quien)
(Mary Quien)
Bliss
After the craziness that was everyone doubting their existence and reality in general, I would like to pose a question. Is ignorance bliss (concerning semantics, not current events/whether or not your stock market portfolio is going to die)?
As Steve put it "Reading all of these makes me question my sanity." While we may be more informed at the present on the nuances of language, would we have been more happy/stable without it? I've never seen the Matrix, but it comes to mind.
We now know that there is nothing certain about language. Like in math where limits approach but never actually reach a specific number, we lost stability once we read Hayakawa. We know so much more yet so much less than when we started. Is ignorance or perpetually limited omniscience preferable?
Liking Calculus but really missing Algebra I,
Grace Yuan
As Steve put it "Reading all of these makes me question my sanity." While we may be more informed at the present on the nuances of language, would we have been more happy/stable without it? I've never seen the Matrix, but it comes to mind.
We now know that there is nothing certain about language. Like in math where limits approach but never actually reach a specific number, we lost stability once we read Hayakawa. We know so much more yet so much less than when we started. Is ignorance or perpetually limited omniscience preferable?
Liking Calculus but really missing Algebra I,
Grace Yuan
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Citing a Source
I know this is a little late, and probably would have been more relevant a few days ago.
Many times, when you argue a point, you rely on a source, such as Time Magazine, New York Times, or the nightly news to give credence to what you are saying. For example, in Policy Debate in debate class, we are given a packet of quotes which we use to support our arguments. But when you argue with someone who is equally knowledgeable on semantics and can point out that the nightly news, Time Magazine, and the New York Times all have a bias, and are really trying to sell their information, does it just boil down to an argument over this?
I know that was really confusing, but basically I am trying to ask if the only facts you can base an argument off of are from your own experiences, since we know other sources can never be completely true. This is obviously not true, but why not? Why can't i just argue against every outside source that my opponent brings up, saying that their is a bias and that the story is probably exaggerated to get more attention?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Many times, when you argue a point, you rely on a source, such as Time Magazine, New York Times, or the nightly news to give credence to what you are saying. For example, in Policy Debate in debate class, we are given a packet of quotes which we use to support our arguments. But when you argue with someone who is equally knowledgeable on semantics and can point out that the nightly news, Time Magazine, and the New York Times all have a bias, and are really trying to sell their information, does it just boil down to an argument over this?
I know that was really confusing, but basically I am trying to ask if the only facts you can base an argument off of are from your own experiences, since we know other sources can never be completely true. This is obviously not true, but why not? Why can't i just argue against every outside source that my opponent brings up, saying that their is a bias and that the story is probably exaggerated to get more attention?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
Is everything arguable?
Just today, Mrs. Ericson was lecturing about the class notes when a statement caught my eye. It read, "Starches are insoluble in water." A day earlier, however, she had asked us to add the word "most" to the sentence, leading to the newly developed phrase, "Most starches are insoluble in water." The addition of the word triggered a bell in my memory, leading me to the thought of qualifiers used in the Toulmin Method of Argumentation.
Yes, our biology teacher has reminded us many a time to take into account the circumstances within which the information is given. (For example, crystalline ionic bonds are stronger than covalent bonds, yet the reverse is true in aqueous solutions.) Therefore, a piece of information is not necessarily and directly false when countering data is introduced. All is dependent upon the environment, specifically the semantic one. This ties in closely with our discussion of language thusfar. Due to varying intentensional and extensional worlds, along with varying affective connotations/definitions, words, statements, and scenarios may never be understood quite exactly the same more than once.
"...that no word ever has exactly the same meaning twice...since no two contexts are ever exactly the same, no two meanings can ever be exactly the same" (Hayakawa 39).
My question, however, resides more within the boundaries of the qualifiers and argumentation that is tied closely with them. "Most starches are insoluble in water," sounds an awful lot like a claim to me. Yet, how can this be? Starch is a substance easily acquired in our extensional world. It is studied just as easily with the utilization of scientific tools and research. Upon completing a set of studies, one will conclude that MOST starches are insoluble (of course, there are always exceptions to any rule, yet the speaker has acknowledged this fact).
Hayakawa states that, "Namely, when utterances have extensional meanings, discussion can be ended and agreement reached; when utterances have intensional meanings only and no extensional meanings, arguments may, and often do, go on indefinitely" (38).
I am not discussing fairies and mermaids, however. I am stating a fact about something concrete (starch) that has been studied extensively in biological fields. Why, then, does the scientific statement greatly resemble a claim?
(Samantha Maliha)
Yes, our biology teacher has reminded us many a time to take into account the circumstances within which the information is given. (For example, crystalline ionic bonds are stronger than covalent bonds, yet the reverse is true in aqueous solutions.) Therefore, a piece of information is not necessarily and directly false when countering data is introduced. All is dependent upon the environment, specifically the semantic one. This ties in closely with our discussion of language thusfar. Due to varying intentensional and extensional worlds, along with varying affective connotations/definitions, words, statements, and scenarios may never be understood quite exactly the same more than once.
"...that no word ever has exactly the same meaning twice...since no two contexts are ever exactly the same, no two meanings can ever be exactly the same" (Hayakawa 39).
My question, however, resides more within the boundaries of the qualifiers and argumentation that is tied closely with them. "Most starches are insoluble in water," sounds an awful lot like a claim to me. Yet, how can this be? Starch is a substance easily acquired in our extensional world. It is studied just as easily with the utilization of scientific tools and research. Upon completing a set of studies, one will conclude that MOST starches are insoluble (of course, there are always exceptions to any rule, yet the speaker has acknowledged this fact).
Hayakawa states that, "Namely, when utterances have extensional meanings, discussion can be ended and agreement reached; when utterances have intensional meanings only and no extensional meanings, arguments may, and often do, go on indefinitely" (38).
I am not discussing fairies and mermaids, however. I am stating a fact about something concrete (starch) that has been studied extensively in biological fields. Why, then, does the scientific statement greatly resemble a claim?
(Samantha Maliha)
Watch It Spin Around and Around
As Hayakawa has told us, slanting, bias, snarl-words and purr-words are prevalent in much of the "news" we read everyday.
But what if we could change that?
That's the premise behind a new website launched called SpinSpotter, at http://spinspotter.com/home. The website allows readers to go through pieces of news and mark the parts that have bias. This what SpinSpotter's website tells us: "Now there's a website and software tool that exposes news spin and bias, misuse of sources, and suspect factual support....the truth is back in town."
Sounds a bit too good to be true. The website actually crowd-sources its work, meaning that ordinary people like us can go onto the website, read pieces of news, and mark parts that have spin and bias implanted in them. For example, if we came upon needless snarl words and insults in an article, we could mark them using SpinSpotter and tell other readers exactly what types of biases are in the article. Come on, what are you waiting for? Go onto SpinSpotter and become a "truth monger and spin destroyer"!
Please, don't.
Everyone views biases differently: we even view bias with bias. What one person regards as blatantly liberal, another may consider perfectly rational. Thus, how can ordinary people go onto the site and mark elements of bias to remove if everyone views bias through his/her own intesional world?
For example, imagine that you saw an article describing Palin as a "right-wing nutjob". You might decide to mark this phrase as having bias against conservatives. However, another person might consider that phrase to be fair and justified. Bias is not the same to every person, so how can we even try to eliminate it by using imperfect people as the judges of bias? Who is judging the judges?
If anything, SpinSpotter could end up creating even more bias. Articles might be marked all over with labels that do not reveal anything factual about the article, but instead just show us the intensional viewpoint of the person who marked the "bias." We'd probably find out more about the intensional worlds of the markers than the extensional world the article is describing.
But who knows: maybe SpinSpotter will end up being the salvation of mankind. I highly doubt its efficacy, as human beings already view bias with bias. Today, we might have laughed at McCain's definition of "fundamental", but another group might consider the revision well-deserved and long overdue. SpinSpotter is flawed in its fundamentals.
Any thoughts?
(Eric Wei)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Further Complicating the Issue
What we see, hear, feel or otherwise perceive is (technically) not on our extensional maps. "Don't we respond' only the electrical and chemical events that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object?" For example, what we see as "red" is not the same as what a person with colorblindness sees as "red." Thus, do we not experience the actual object?
Assuming that based off of cogito ergo sum, we exist, how does that translate to consciousness? We express our consciousness to other people/"consciousnesses" by using language. If language is always prone to bias and false statements, how do we know we are not alone in a world of imaginary things/"people"?
**NB Don't read on unless you want to be even more confused by my rambling.
One more thought. How do we know babies are conscious human beings if they cannot express themselves through definitive language? (And to just make it more confusing. My sister and I could communicate before we knew how to speak. Does that define our consciousness to each other or to everyone?)
Cogito Ergo Sum what I believe to be,
Grace Yuan
NB again. The quote is from http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Philos/indexReality.html It's wonderfully confusing though I haven't read far enough to establish that for sure.
Assuming that based off of cogito ergo sum, we exist, how does that translate to consciousness? We express our consciousness to other people/"consciousnesses" by using language. If language is always prone to bias and false statements, how do we know we are not alone in a world of imaginary things/"people"?
**NB Don't read on unless you want to be even more confused by my rambling.
One more thought. How do we know babies are conscious human beings if they cannot express themselves through definitive language? (And to just make it more confusing. My sister and I could communicate before we knew how to speak. Does that define our consciousness to each other or to everyone?)
Cogito Ergo Sum what I believe to be,
Grace Yuan
NB again. The quote is from http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Philos/indexReality.html It's wonderfully confusing though I haven't read far enough to establish that for sure.
Newsflash
Newsflash:
The benevolent and kind Mr. Lazarow has granted us a reprieve from our homework this night.
@:D
May his mercy be everlasting!
Hooray!
(Mr. Lazarow told me at an Interact event tonight that there would be no homework today.)
(Eric Wei)
The benevolent and kind Mr. Lazarow has granted us a reprieve from our homework this night.
@:D
May his mercy be everlasting!
Hooray!
(Mr. Lazarow told me at an Interact event tonight that there would be no homework today.)
(Eric Wei)
Does the Toulmin Model negate the claim of God's existence (and/or religious miracles) in rational terms?
Ok, i hate to set up a whole new post (especially one with such an outlandishly long title) when we've got so many interesting conversations swirling around the blogosphere, but I, like always, wanted to stir up some controversy. In religious debates I've always tended to take a, as my mom puts it, "preach from your soapbox" kind of Christopher Hitchens approach. But, as the Toulmin model has taught me, this just isolates the audience even further. But I'm getting off track. The point is...
Take for example the simple claim "God exists and is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient." We need some sort of grounds to back this statement up. A purely fact based argument is simply out of the question seeing as we have no verifiable data, no scientific evidence, or substantial references to back it up. An opinion-based grounds (not the same as opinionated) is plausible, but would be rather flimsy, given the need for opinions to be backed up with facts, and are in fact interpretations of fact. And case examples do not work because even if the audience shares a mutual understanding of God as you do, this assertion is only speculative, and examples dealing with reality are vastly more convincing than hypothetical ones.
So a believers argument is simply stalled in the early stages of development. But, we could examine the flaws in any case claiming divine dictatorship in more explicit detail in later stages of the method. I'm sure this is getting tedious so I'll pose one example.
One might claim God's existence through any set of "miracles" witnessed on the planet. I'll forgo the obvious tawdriness and ambivalence of said miracles (when a football player makes an astounding athletic play he thanks God for "blessing him in His infinite grace", but when an infant dies just hours after being born from some sort of painful deformity, God is either not mentioned at all or "it was just in God's plan to take the child"), and focus on the fact that causation does not equal correlation. It never ceases to amaze me that the major religious factions scoff at superstition, when their own beliefs are laden with the same inaccuracies. Because one prays for rain and subsequently it rains the next day does not mean that God picked up your prayer on one of His many ears. It simply means that the meteorological conditions of this cooling Earth have produced precipitation in your region. The cause does not match the effect.
Okay I'm done ranting. Do with this what you will. If I am sounding snobbish or preachy, please do let me know.
(Taylor Burke)
"If We Stop Voting, Will They Go Away?"
I saw this quote on the bulletin of that place near Wegman's, you know, the yellow one that always has different funny quotes? Well, I was just wondering, what if that happened? What if everyone all of a sudden decided that they didn't care anymore? What would the advertisers do then? I was actually thinking of the Toulmin Sentence at this point. I don't think that the claim would change, but would they add more grounds and backings? Or would they try to find more common ground with the everyday person? Would they try to reduce the number of rebuttals? Or increase them? I'm actually not quite sure of this myself and wondering what you all think of this.
(Mary Quien)
(Mary Quien)
What is Reality?
Although we briefly touched upon this topic already, I was so intrigued by the question that I thought it might need further emphasis.
How do we know what is real? Rather, if we perceive something in the extensional world, how do we know that it actually exists there and is not an addition inserted in by our intensional world?
We never can be too sure of what is real and what is not. Our intensional world inevitably colors our perceptions of the extensional world, and so sometimes we may unconsciously add elements to our view of the extensional world. For example, if I were terrified and alone in a dark dank forest, my mind would soon play tricks upon me and I would be hearing and seeing things that did not really exist in the extensional world. My fear has blurred my vision of the extensional world.
But then in the "real world," how would we even be able to tell if something did exist or not? People hallucinating are probably not aware of their condition and may believe their visions to be real.
And when we are dreaming, are we aware during our dreams that we are not in the extensional territory but are lost within our intensional maps? Many times it is only after we wake up panting and shaking do we understand that "it was only a dream." After all, how many times in real life have you told a friend, "Pinch me. I must be dreaming"? Zhuangzi, a Chinese philosopher, once dreamed that he was a butterfly. After he woke up, he asked himself, "Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."
How do we know that what we are experiencing right now is real, and not just a dream that we will soon wake up from?
Just a few idle musings. Thoughts are greatly appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
How do we know what is real? Rather, if we perceive something in the extensional world, how do we know that it actually exists there and is not an addition inserted in by our intensional world?
We never can be too sure of what is real and what is not. Our intensional world inevitably colors our perceptions of the extensional world, and so sometimes we may unconsciously add elements to our view of the extensional world. For example, if I were terrified and alone in a dark dank forest, my mind would soon play tricks upon me and I would be hearing and seeing things that did not really exist in the extensional world. My fear has blurred my vision of the extensional world.
But then in the "real world," how would we even be able to tell if something did exist or not? People hallucinating are probably not aware of their condition and may believe their visions to be real.
And when we are dreaming, are we aware during our dreams that we are not in the extensional territory but are lost within our intensional maps? Many times it is only after we wake up panting and shaking do we understand that "it was only a dream." After all, how many times in real life have you told a friend, "Pinch me. I must be dreaming"? Zhuangzi, a Chinese philosopher, once dreamed that he was a butterfly. After he woke up, he asked himself, "Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man."
How do we know that what we are experiencing right now is real, and not just a dream that we will soon wake up from?
Just a few idle musings. Thoughts are greatly appreciated.
(Eric Wei)
The Meaning of Life
Going off Arvind's post about the meaning of life in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I consulted my trusty copy (please excuse the nerdiness) of said book.
"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything." He paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly. "But the program will take me a little while to run."
7.5 million years later....
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought (the computer).
"Tell us!"
"All right...The answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything...is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.
"Forty Two?!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is." (Adams 118-121)
"... the Question and the Answer are mutually exclusive. Knowledge of one logically precludes knowledge of the other. It is impossible that both can ever be known about in the same universe. ... Except, if it happened, it seems that the Question and the Answer would just cancel each other out, and take the universe with them, which would then be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable." (Adams 465)
In the book, a group of mice end up building another supercomputer, what we know as Earth, in order to compute the Ultimate Answer.
Is the answer always more important than the question? Mr. Lazarow touched on this topic at the beginning of the year concerning having the better grade vs. learning something. We, however, as a society often accuse people of being inconclusive. When someone asks a question, they usually expect an answer.
The Renaissance showed that individual thought/choice was key to progress. What type of format is necessary for advancement of society? Seeking questions or discovering answers?
In AP English, do we seek to explore semantics to learn the "laws" (if there are any) of language or to create more questions?
Grace Yuan
"All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything." He paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly. "But the program will take me a little while to run."
7.5 million years later....
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought (the computer).
"Tell us!"
"All right...The answer to the Great Question of Life, the Universe and Everything...is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.
"Forty Two?!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
"I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is." (Adams 118-121)
"... the Question and the Answer are mutually exclusive. Knowledge of one logically precludes knowledge of the other. It is impossible that both can ever be known about in the same universe. ... Except, if it happened, it seems that the Question and the Answer would just cancel each other out, and take the universe with them, which would then be replaced by something even more bizarrely inexplicable." (Adams 465)
In the book, a group of mice end up building another supercomputer, what we know as Earth, in order to compute the Ultimate Answer.
Is the answer always more important than the question? Mr. Lazarow touched on this topic at the beginning of the year concerning having the better grade vs. learning something. We, however, as a society often accuse people of being inconclusive. When someone asks a question, they usually expect an answer.
The Renaissance showed that individual thought/choice was key to progress. What type of format is necessary for advancement of society? Seeking questions or discovering answers?
In AP English, do we seek to explore semantics to learn the "laws" (if there are any) of language or to create more questions?
Grace Yuan
Monday, September 15, 2008
The Truman Show
Hey guys, this may be a bit off-topic, but I think it still merits discussion. My mind started to wander during the lecture today (I swear it was only for 20 seconds Mr. L.) and I started looking at Mr. Lazarow's wall of movie posters. The one for The Truman Show caught my attention, so I turned it on when I got home today. For anyone who doesn't know it is about a 30-year-old man named Truman whose entire life is a TV show, and he doesn't even know it. In an interview a reporter asked The Truman Show's director, "why is it you think Truman has never come close to discovering the true nature of his world?" The director responded "we accept the reality of the world with which we are presented, it's as simple as that." Do we? Look at the Middle Ages, during that period people lived in a drastic social hierarchy with a life of leisure for the rich and an early grave for the poor. Not only that, but they accepted it and didn't want it to change. The fully accepted the way their world was when they were born. On the other hand look at modern times, today people base their entire lives around advancing their social position. But is that us trying to change the status of our world, or accepting the fundamental values of the society in which we live? Thoughts?
(Connor Tweardy)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Watching the News
I was watching the news in order to figure out if it seemed that the true purpose of the program was to entertain or to convey information. In addition to realizing that ratings really seem to be the first thing on the reporter's minds I made several other observations about language.
First of all, I realized that who the speaker is often matters more than what they are saying. In a way, the credentials of the speaker is another element of affective connotation.Why is it that we can not only be more easily swayed by some people simply because of who they are, without checking the verifiability of their information? Just as many people only trust reporters who don't cite their sources simply because of their position, many people can get away with saying things that others couldn't because of their status. In a lot of rap music African American singers repeatedly refer to themselves and others by the the N word, something that is accepted as normal under those circumstances. Even in a similar situation, with the only change being the rapper's race, this could be seen as extremely inappropriate and many member's of the audience would probably become angry.
Another thing I observed was the enormous role that the media plays in the campains of the presidential hopefuls by repeatedly using certain snarl-words to describe them or their policies. For example, many journalists and reporters have continually referred to Obama and Lieberman as "elitists", implying that they couldn't possibly appeal to the everyday person, only upper-class intellectuals. The fact that this word actually conveys no information about either canidate is irrelevant , the word itself has negativly affected the entire campain.
First of all, I realized that who the speaker is often matters more than what they are saying. In a way, the credentials of the speaker is another element of affective connotation.Why is it that we can not only be more easily swayed by some people simply because of who they are, without checking the verifiability of their information? Just as many people only trust reporters who don't cite their sources simply because of their position, many people can get away with saying things that others couldn't because of their status. In a lot of rap music African American singers repeatedly refer to themselves and others by the the N word, something that is accepted as normal under those circumstances. Even in a similar situation, with the only change being the rapper's race, this could be seen as extremely inappropriate and many member's of the audience would probably become angry.
Another thing I observed was the enormous role that the media plays in the campains of the presidential hopefuls by repeatedly using certain snarl-words to describe them or their policies. For example, many journalists and reporters have continually referred to Obama and Lieberman as "elitists", implying that they couldn't possibly appeal to the everyday person, only upper-class intellectuals. The fact that this word actually conveys no information about either canidate is irrelevant , the word itself has negativly affected the entire campain.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Perspective Bias?
(Steve Szumski)
Ive been thinking about all the discussion of the mind abstracting extensional experiences, especially Arvind's comment about Clinton exaggerating her experiences. Ive come to the conclusion that its impossible to NOT exaggerate experiences, whether it be in your own mind or in your relating the event to others. The very way the mind perceives the situation and the way our memories operate prioritizes certain things over others. For example, my mom related to me an experience she had recently. Two cars were driving down the highway in front of her, and one flipped over and crashed, bring another car with it. She described it as happening in "slow motion", something I'm sure we have all heard about. I think this is an blatant example of the human mind twisting experiences and creating a perspective bias (don't know if that's even an expression).
So this perspective bias always exists, and the state of our minds at the time can dictate to what extent it operates. It might be the case Pi's mind simply was under too much strain and his perspective bias concocted this situation with the animals to mask the harsher reality of the human degradation.
Of course I'm making all of this up as I go but I'd like to hear what others think of what I'm calling the "Perspective Bias"
Ive been thinking about all the discussion of the mind abstracting extensional experiences, especially Arvind's comment about Clinton exaggerating her experiences. Ive come to the conclusion that its impossible to NOT exaggerate experiences, whether it be in your own mind or in your relating the event to others. The very way the mind perceives the situation and the way our memories operate prioritizes certain things over others. For example, my mom related to me an experience she had recently. Two cars were driving down the highway in front of her, and one flipped over and crashed, bring another car with it. She described it as happening in "slow motion", something I'm sure we have all heard about. I think this is an blatant example of the human mind twisting experiences and creating a perspective bias (don't know if that's even an expression).
So this perspective bias always exists, and the state of our minds at the time can dictate to what extent it operates. It might be the case Pi's mind simply was under too much strain and his perspective bias concocted this situation with the animals to mask the harsher reality of the human degradation.
Of course I'm making all of this up as I go but I'd like to hear what others think of what I'm calling the "Perspective Bias"
Friday, September 12, 2008
Why aren't nespapers reliable?Why is Hayakawa reliable?
I actually have a question about the process behind verifying reports. Why should we not believe newspapers if in some cases, the reporters have witnessed the events being discussed first hand? Sources have to start somewhere,. Don't they originate from experiences in our own extensional worlds (or in this case, the reporter's extensional world)? If this is true, then is there reason to doubt these reports? If there was a report in the newspaper about the current presidential race, and direct quotations were used in that report regarding what a cannidate said, isn't that reliable information? Whether we agree with what the cannidate said or not, can't we agree that they did in fact say what is written? For, if they did not utter the words they are being quoted on, you would immediately hear about how the newspaper had been lying. For example, (purely hypothetical) if Obama was quoted as saying, "I hate poor people," and he in fact did not say that, wouldn't the report that supposedly quoted him quickly come under fire? In a matter of days, the report would be pronounced by other newspapers, TV programs, etc. as being invalid. In this way, can't we trust newspapers? If it says there was a fire in NYC are we going to doubt the paper? Are we going to say, "Show me the proof?" I think it's safe to trust data we regard as "factual", but we should still analyze the opinions expressed in reports with scrutiny.
Mr. Lazarow made the point that we should not trust newspapers because they do not list their sources. Although this is true, many reports use direct quotations like I pointed out earlier. Perhaps Mr. Lazarow believes we should not trust newspapers because we cannot prove that the reporter witnessed the event they are reporting about. However, if thats the reason we shouldn't trust the report, then we shouldn't trust anything, because we can very rarily prove reports on our own without the aid of other reports. Although multiple scholarly sources may agree about something, so may many newspapers or news programs. I agree that it is good not to just believe anything you hear (whether it be from the news, TV, internet, etc.). However, I find it makes sense to believe things we hear, unless we have good reason to doubt them. For if everyone was constantly questioning everyone else's integrity, there would be no social cohesion.
If you think about it, what reason do we have to believe what Hayakawa says in his book? All we can do is shake our heads and think to ourselves, "Yes, that sounds logical." What can we use as a bibliography for his findings about language? After all, isn't what he's writing a form of entertainment just like the news? The cover of Language in Thought and Action says "over one million copies sold." That means Hayakawa's making money. Isn't he essentially doing the same thing as news broadcasters? What's the difference?
Mr. Lazarow made the point that we should not trust newspapers because they do not list their sources. Although this is true, many reports use direct quotations like I pointed out earlier. Perhaps Mr. Lazarow believes we should not trust newspapers because we cannot prove that the reporter witnessed the event they are reporting about. However, if thats the reason we shouldn't trust the report, then we shouldn't trust anything, because we can very rarily prove reports on our own without the aid of other reports. Although multiple scholarly sources may agree about something, so may many newspapers or news programs. I agree that it is good not to just believe anything you hear (whether it be from the news, TV, internet, etc.). However, I find it makes sense to believe things we hear, unless we have good reason to doubt them. For if everyone was constantly questioning everyone else's integrity, there would be no social cohesion.
If you think about it, what reason do we have to believe what Hayakawa says in his book? All we can do is shake our heads and think to ourselves, "Yes, that sounds logical." What can we use as a bibliography for his findings about language? After all, isn't what he's writing a form of entertainment just like the news? The cover of Language in Thought and Action says "over one million copies sold." That means Hayakawa's making money. Isn't he essentially doing the same thing as news broadcasters? What's the difference?
Beliefs and Facts: Convergence?
Standard Disclaimer, I gues
s: I apologize in advance for any incoherence or unintended offense. It's late.How can the deafblind, people that are both deaf and blind, (most notably, Helen Keller) operate without reports or reports of reports of reports etc? We have established that a fact or what comes closest to being the Truth (for everyone and not just an individual/select group of individuals) is most accurate and complete when it “focus[es] on empirically verifiable phenomena (the past)” (Lazarow) that we can “see, touch, photograph, or in any scientific manner detect the presence of” (Hayakawa 38). Those with deafblindness obviously exist in the extensional world but cannot “see” for themselves. Regardless of how much they try to be independent, they are always reliant (to some degree or another) on the reports of others. Even individuals as talented as Helen Keller needs to invest a considerable amount of trust in something that we regard as the "real world" and she regards as a linguistic construct and perhaps not capital T truth. They must believe.
We are not so different from the blind and the deaf. While I concede that we must question the validity of all reports unless it is made up of physical, verifiable factual data (which may still be subjective to some point), there is a line we have to draw between denial and independence of thought and action.
“[T]here is a huge substratum of cooperation taken for granted that keeps the world going” (Hayakawa 9) When we get caught up in semantics and attempting to prove every single piece of factual evidence or belief that comes our way, bad things happen.
Our Congress is often accused of just “making speeches” instead of actually “doing something.” We need to hold common beliefs and/or trust conventional truths. Language is “a system of agreements (Hayakawa 16). Deal with it.
I found Emily’s comment rather intriguing; “We may not have experienced what s/he is telling us about, but why is it so easy for us to trust what a person has to say, but we find it so difficult to commit to a religion, where faith is also required?” In Jon Krakauer’s Under the Banner of Heaven, he comments in the section of the history of Mormonism that many found it hard to believe in, or subscribe to, the Mormon faith. It was not “shrouded” in time, and thus mystery, like many other religions. While tradition is easy to believe in, as it is handed down through the generations, it tends to lose its verifiability. “When language becomes ritual, its effect becomes…independent of whatever significance it once possessed” (Hayakawa 61-62). It is much easier to research and verify a report or a report of a report rather than (a report of a report of a report)^6 bazillion. Simple belief is much more feasible and convenient. Thus, we have the never-ending arguments with vague evidence/proof that never quite achieve anything concrete.
On the topic of empirically verifiable phenomena and the “shroud” of time, in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Earth is destroyed and one human, Arthur Dent, survives. “Nelson’s Column has gone, McDonald’s has gone, all that’s left is me and the words Mostly harmless [describing the Earth]. And yesterday the planet seemed to be going so well” (Adams 52). If there is no way to prove that the Earth exists (it has been blasted to make room for a “hyperspatial express route”/highway-type thing) except for memories (that cannot be verified) and belief, does the thing exist to everyone (not just to yourself)? Exactly how important and valid is belief and does it have ever have an equal or higher value than conventional truth? Any thoughts?
(Grace Yuan)
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Dictionary and other Reports
I just wanted to bring out a few of the thoughts that I had after the class discussion today. The first has to do with the point we just left off on, the dictionary. Now, as stated, everyone has their different definitions of things and when in an argument, tries to get their opponent to agree with their definition. However, the dictionary is a piece of work that pretty much everyone refers to. Therefore, don't we all have the same definition of words at some point, at some level of the ladder of abstraction (even though it may be really high up there)?
Another point I wanted to bring up was the verifiability of reports. In class, we came up with a good number of reports that were based off of other reports, that don't tell all the details or facts, and that are really there to entertain us. Well, on my way home from practice, I saw all this huge traffic jam on route 38, and I thought, "What about traffic reports?" I admit that traffic reports usually don't exist, unless within another sort of media, but aren't they verifiable? I mean, you can just go to the spot yourself and just see it. Also, most people are probably going to think the same thing no matter whatever position they are in: "There are a lot of cars. It's going take a while for those cars to get through."
Thoughts?
(Mary Quien)
Another point I wanted to bring up was the verifiability of reports. In class, we came up with a good number of reports that were based off of other reports, that don't tell all the details or facts, and that are really there to entertain us. Well, on my way home from practice, I saw all this huge traffic jam on route 38, and I thought, "What about traffic reports?" I admit that traffic reports usually don't exist, unless within another sort of media, but aren't they verifiable? I mean, you can just go to the spot yourself and just see it. Also, most people are probably going to think the same thing no matter whatever position they are in: "There are a lot of cars. It's going take a while for those cars to get through."
Thoughts?
(Mary Quien)
I had a thought concerning the discussion we had during class today. Referring specifically to religion, Mr. Lazarow mentioned Hayakawa's point that things like religion cannot be extensionally proven, it is something based merely on faith and belief. The thought that I had concerning this, though, begins with the assumption that, when it comes down to it, any peice of "fact", or, rather, information can be argued. As Hayakawa states, the only thing we can be sure of is what we see/experience for ourselves, and all other information that we receive comes from reports, reports of reports, and so on. With that in mind, why can't religion be proven in the same way that all things are proven without the benefit of first hand experience-- with reports and reports of reports? I will use Christianity as an example because that is that religion that I am most familiar with. The Bible is, in essence, a book of reports, reports of reports, etc. Hayakawa says that the existence of angels is an endless argument because we can't see them. But, what about the shepherds the night that Jesus was born? It is reported that they saw angels. There are many other examples. And what about historical evidence? My question is, what is the difference between religious faith and the faith that we have in those that write in the newspaper, those that write nonfiction books about presidents who lived centuries ago, etc.? When it comes down to it, anytime that we believe what another person is saying means that we have faith that that person is not lying to us. We may not have experienced what s/he is telling us about, but why is it so easy for us to trust what a person has to say, but we find it so difficult to commit to a religion, where faith is also required?
I understand that religion has become a very "touchy" topic, and I don't mean to step on anyone's toes-- my question is, can religion truly be proven? I just wanted to share my thoughts, and I would very gladly hear the thoughts of my peers. I would also welcome more examples from classmates that may have backrounds in another religion.
I understand that religion has become a very "touchy" topic, and I don't mean to step on anyone's toes-- my question is, can religion truly be proven? I just wanted to share my thoughts, and I would very gladly hear the thoughts of my peers. I would also welcome more examples from classmates that may have backrounds in another religion.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Toulmin Method
I have found three examples for the three types of claims that we reviewed in class today.
1.) Claims of Judgement
2.) Claims of Fact
3.) Claims of Policy
Just as a review, I'll provide three statements, and then I'd like to hear your interpretations concerning which claim type they abide by. I have chosen to do so because these are statements that I find may be somewhat tricky and may have overlapping claims.
Statement #1: That little girl just might have the sweetest laugh in the world!
Statement #2: The conflict will end tonight.
Statement #3: She should have the correct answer on her paper.
Are these even examples of claims? Do you all feel that claims have to do with the verb tense in which they are stated? A bit of clarity would be appreciated. Thank you!
(Samantha Maliha)
1.) Claims of Judgement
2.) Claims of Fact
3.) Claims of Policy
Just as a review, I'll provide three statements, and then I'd like to hear your interpretations concerning which claim type they abide by. I have chosen to do so because these are statements that I find may be somewhat tricky and may have overlapping claims.
Statement #1: That little girl just might have the sweetest laugh in the world!
Statement #2: The conflict will end tonight.
Statement #3: She should have the correct answer on her paper.
Are these even examples of claims? Do you all feel that claims have to do with the verb tense in which they are stated? A bit of clarity would be appreciated. Thank you!
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Life of Pi
I realize that everyone has written the Hayakawa essay regarding the Life of Pi excerpt, but I thought I'd blog about some additional thoughts I had about it after finishing the essay. I'm sure that someone thought of something after completing his/her essay..?
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't actually read Life of Pi. I am, however, aware of how Hayakawa emphasized regarding the importance of context. "Any word in a sentence - any sentence in a paragraph, any paragraph in a larger unit - whose meaning is revealed by its context is part of the context of the rest of the test...All words within a given context interact upon one another." (Hayakawa 41) In this particular case, the knowledge of the context provides me with a different perspective on the passage.
In short, Pi tells the two investigators about being stranded at sea with various animals, including a hyena which eats all the animals except for a Bengal tiger. Of course, the investigators declare such a story to be pure fantasy (This is the dialogue found in the writing prompt) and Pi offers them the same story but with humans replacing the animals. Pi never specifically says which story is true, but the reader gets the impression that the first version of events was a sort of coping mechanism for the horrific experience (The second version) he has gone through.
In my essay I wrote that his assertion that "[t]he world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it" (Martel 360) was a linguistic mistake. I concluded that he was misunderstanding a basic principle that Hayakawa continually stresses - that "[t]he symbol is not the thing symbolized," (Hayakawa 19). Pi, however, later tells the investigators “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently." (Martel 302) This makes it clear that the dispute between Pi and the investigators is not one that clearly stems from there being "...something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (Hayakawa 12) In making such an assertion, Pi reminds both the investigators and the reader that imagination and invention is a distinct human capacity and serves as a mechanism for self-preservation.
In the end, the investigators admit that the first "fantasy" version is the better one and include it in their report. But hadn't they set out to find the "straight facts"? If "[l]anguage...makes progress possible." (Hayakawa 7), then Pi's (assumed) misrepresentation of the occurrences of the extensional world was helpful instead of detrimental. And yet, supposedly, "[t]he desire for self-preservation that compelled people to evolve means for the exchange of information also compels them to regard the giving of false information as profoundly reprehensible." (Hayakawa 23)
Invention and imagination are, in some respects, processes that yield false information. Yet, it is clear that these uniquely human capabilities are driving forces behind both innovation and self-preservation.
I think that this block of text is enough for tonight. I apologize in advance for not actually coming to a conclusion and posting it here myself. It seems that as I wrote and researched at the same time, it occurred to me that presenting the situation alone would be more interesting than providing a supplementary conclusion. Any thoughts?
Tiffany Yuan
I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't actually read Life of Pi. I am, however, aware of how Hayakawa emphasized regarding the importance of context. "Any word in a sentence - any sentence in a paragraph, any paragraph in a larger unit - whose meaning is revealed by its context is part of the context of the rest of the test...All words within a given context interact upon one another." (Hayakawa 41) In this particular case, the knowledge of the context provides me with a different perspective on the passage.
In short, Pi tells the two investigators about being stranded at sea with various animals, including a hyena which eats all the animals except for a Bengal tiger. Of course, the investigators declare such a story to be pure fantasy (This is the dialogue found in the writing prompt) and Pi offers them the same story but with humans replacing the animals. Pi never specifically says which story is true, but the reader gets the impression that the first version of events was a sort of coping mechanism for the horrific experience (The second version) he has gone through.
In my essay I wrote that his assertion that "[t]he world isn't just the way it is. It is how we understand it" (Martel 360) was a linguistic mistake. I concluded that he was misunderstanding a basic principle that Hayakawa continually stresses - that "[t]he symbol is not the thing symbolized," (Hayakawa 19). Pi, however, later tells the investigators “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently." (Martel 302) This makes it clear that the dispute between Pi and the investigators is not one that clearly stems from there being "...something linguistically wrong with the speaker, the listener, or both." (Hayakawa 12) In making such an assertion, Pi reminds both the investigators and the reader that imagination and invention is a distinct human capacity and serves as a mechanism for self-preservation.
In the end, the investigators admit that the first "fantasy" version is the better one and include it in their report. But hadn't they set out to find the "straight facts"? If "[l]anguage...makes progress possible." (Hayakawa 7), then Pi's (assumed) misrepresentation of the occurrences of the extensional world was helpful instead of detrimental. And yet, supposedly, "[t]he desire for self-preservation that compelled people to evolve means for the exchange of information also compels them to regard the giving of false information as profoundly reprehensible." (Hayakawa 23)
Invention and imagination are, in some respects, processes that yield false information. Yet, it is clear that these uniquely human capabilities are driving forces behind both innovation and self-preservation.
I think that this block of text is enough for tonight. I apologize in advance for not actually coming to a conclusion and posting it here myself. It seems that as I wrote and researched at the same time, it occurred to me that presenting the situation alone would be more interesting than providing a supplementary conclusion. Any thoughts?
Tiffany Yuan
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
A thought about human nature
Hi everyone! I know this is off topic from our current discussion, but I had an interesting thought. Hayakawa makes the point that much of what we know about the world comes from what we have read in reports. Everything else we have learned has come from personal experiences in "our own extensional worlds."
Now here's what I find to be curious. Say you are watching the news one night, and you hear that John Dough had been killed in a horrible accident. Until that point you never knew John Dough existed. In fact, as far as you were concerned, he DID NOT exist. However, after hearing about his horrible accident, you feel deep remorse. Why? Had John Dough's story not been brought to your attention, you would have never known that it had happened. He never would have existed. Why then, do you feel sorry for John? You never met him. Had you not been told of his misfortune, his misfortune never would have existed (as far as you are concerned). At the same time though, you know thousands of people die everyday from disease, natural causes, etc. why do you not feel the same remorse for them? Isn't it true that they exist as much as John Dough? Is it the name? Is that what causes our grief? Why do such reports effect us in such different ways?
Kevin Trainer
Now here's what I find to be curious. Say you are watching the news one night, and you hear that John Dough had been killed in a horrible accident. Until that point you never knew John Dough existed. In fact, as far as you were concerned, he DID NOT exist. However, after hearing about his horrible accident, you feel deep remorse. Why? Had John Dough's story not been brought to your attention, you would have never known that it had happened. He never would have existed. Why then, do you feel sorry for John? You never met him. Had you not been told of his misfortune, his misfortune never would have existed (as far as you are concerned). At the same time though, you know thousands of people die everyday from disease, natural causes, etc. why do you not feel the same remorse for them? Isn't it true that they exist as much as John Dough? Is it the name? Is that what causes our grief? Why do such reports effect us in such different ways?
Kevin Trainer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)